Decoding Dollhouse
I think I understand what Whedon is trying to do:

The "high concept" of Dollhouse is this: men actively fighting misogyny/sexism.

Or coming to the realization that they need to fight it, and fighting it.

The Dollhouse is meant to be both a realistic and symbolic stand-in for misogyny, sexism, and objectification of women. We think that Echo is the main character, but that's really a bait-and-switch; the important figures are everyone else: watching Boyd and Ballard face off against Topher, DeWitt, & Leonard.


Dr. Fred is probably with Boyd and Ballard, on the good guy side, but she's meant to be seen as a victim too, that's why she's got the scars to emphasize her being hurt. This is why we're getting really detailed scenes with both B's: Boyd's awareness/distaste is meant to contrast with Topher's cavalier attitude; Ballard's struggle is to prove to his bosses that the mindwiping/rape that takes place at the Dollhouse really *is* important enough to warrant investigation by official institutions.

Instinctively, I can see that as a "subversive" concept that Joss could totally get behind. And even one that he could sell to the networks. If that's what this is, then I can definitely see the appeal (for me, even*): how many shows exist that are *about* men fighting sexism?

I think the concept is not without problems: if the narratives are supposed to show us different scenarios in which women, or Echo, at least, is weakened via objectification/misogyny, so that we can watch Boyd becoming more and more aware of how this is problematic in contrast with Topher's cavalier attitude; and watch Ballard arguing to convince his superiors that mindwiping/trafficking women is important enough that it does warrant federal investigation...

...it's both a really powerful pro-feminist stance AND male-centric at its heart. It's both revolutionary and, I fear, subtle enough that it will really be preaching to the choir.

I've been bothered by how much the first two episodes seem to feature Echo needing to be helped in a key way by men. Even though she kills Matt Keeslar's character in the second ep, until Boyd shows up to reassure her (and be reassured), she runs around like a scared rabbit. If the point is that men don't help women fight misogyny/sexism sufficiently, then Whedon is right -- though I feel that men "rescuing" women from this is problematic in its own right.

If I'm right, then this explains the sort of hiding in plain sight vibe that I'm getting from the Dollhouse. Sexism and misogyny hide in plain sight, too.

Where this fails, I think, is in representing perspectives that are harmful as people that are harmful, but who can nevertheless be knocked down. Perspectives aren't nearly as easy to conquer. But I can totally see the characters fitting into roles as perspectives: Leonard is the overt misogynist, Topher is the more subtle misogynist who might argue that he's just making women better, giving them opportunities, etc.; DeWitt is the female traitor who perpetrates the ideal of the perfect woman (note that she's the one who makes the pitch about what these actives can do and how well they do it) just as women who buy into the ideals of the patriarchy harm other women.

Oh, and Alpha? Alpha is the stereotypical "alpha male," with all the potential harm and violence that the alpha male can cause accelerated and made visible.

Another problem, if this is what Whedon is trying to do, is that both Boyd and Ballard start off as heroes. Whedon tries to make them less heroic by having Ballard shown as a bit violent himself, and Boyd acquiescing to what's happening in the Dollhouse, even reluctantly. Boyd's role is as the aware but passive male who realizes he can't be passive about misogyny anymore; Ballard is the forceful/powerful male who needs to learn how to channel his energy.

I don't like the idea that this is a show about women being rescued from misogyny by men. But I'm hoping that when I've seen more than two episodes, it'll be more clear that Echo/Caroline is going to be learning ways to regain her independence on her own, as well as with the help of male colleagues.

But as a political message, I don't think this works. I think that all it might do (and this is a vast oversimplification) is get your stereotypical boorish viewer to say, "Well, no, I don't rent customizable prostitutes. I know that's wrong." And that misses the point of the subtlety of misogyny/sexism/objectification.

ETA: Oh, yes. The mythology behind this supports this interpretation too, I think. Here's Echo's story: she's essentially a tool of the patriarchy who helps Zeus by distracting Hera with chatter so that she (Hera) won't detect Zeus' infidelity. When Hera finds out, she removes Echo's voice, and her agency, so that she can only mimic those who have spoken before her.

How much like imprinting and engagements does that sound to you? Echo is a tool of the patriarchy, used by men in a variety of ways to further their own desires**; resented by another woman (Hera and DeWitt are a loose parallel); and eventually her life is ended in one way or another (myths vary slightly) as a result of her love for a narcissistic male. (I'm assuming that Echo's life won't be ended, of course. It may be pushing too far to suggest that Whedon is rewriting mythology this way...however, I do think that it might be significant that our first view of Echo on a mission ended with her waxing romantic over a guy).

* Maybe I should revise this to say that I can see his good intentions, though at the same time, I think that this method just reinforces the idea of the patriarchy, while trying to "improve" it into a patriarchy that is less misogynistic. And a less misogynistic patriarchy is still the patriarchy.

**I know we may see Echo in other more altruistic assignments, or assignments where she's being used by women -- I think politically that's meant to show that both genders can promote objectification/sexism/misogyny -- but I think we're going to see far more men hiring out Echo than we will see women.



I don't really know whether I'm onto something or way off base with this. I'd welcome other peoples' views.